Race, wealth, and homeownership

Reading Jason Kuznicki’s article in the latest issue of Cato Journal, I was struck by the similarities between his historical analysis and a post Jamelle wrote a few months ago. First, here’s Jamelle (emphasis mine):

For what it’s worth, I don’t expect that to change; if we acknowledge the federal government’s role in creating generational black poverty, then necessarily have to acknowledge the federal government’s equally direct role in building the wealth of middle-class white America. As Wright notes, the Homestead Acts, the New Deal and the G.I. Bill all but created the white middle-class. To acknowledge that – to really, truly take it and its implications seriously – is to directly undermine the myth of self-reliance and independence that we cling to as Americans. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that a full public account and understanding of the government’s role in hampering black progress will probably put us on a path towards something approaching reparations*, which – as I’m sure you’ve noticed – aren’t terribly popular.

One of the most egregious examples of the federalization of Jim Crow came in the form of the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA was created in 1934 to extend loans to relatively risky home buyers otherwise unable to obtain them. One way it sought to preserve these home buyers’ investments was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the racially restrictive covenant. The FHA explicitly recommended restrictive covenants and even insisted on them, with the announced goal of protecting the property values of FHA mortgages (Massey2007: 60–61).The FHA also appears to have pioneered the practice of “redlining”— that is, of establishing areas into which blacks and whites are sorted when they enter the housing market, with the intent of producing segregated neighborhoods. Indeed, the red lines referenced in the term were first drawn on FHA maps. They demarcated heavily black neighborhoods, which could not receive FHA loans at all (Roediger 2005: 226–27). Even the incomes of the would-be homeowners were irrelevant (Massey 2007: 60). Historian David Roediger describes the FHA as “the open incarnation of the New Deal alliance between white supremacist southern Democrats and northern segregationist forces, in this case realtors, bankers, and white urban and suburban home owners,” whose “largesse” was “racially targeted” (Roediger 2005: 228).

Demographers continue to dispute the extent and even the existence of redlining among private real estate agents, with at least two recent studies concluding that race has not been a significant factor in the private market for homes (Holmes and Horvitz 1994, Klein and Grace 2001). The clearest form of redlining remains the eponymous redlining of the FHA. Although these practices clearly cannot explain the entire gap between black and white wealth accumulation, no one disputes that in the decades following the New Deal, home equity became the largest source of wealth for the American middle class. However, black homeownership has lagged behind, even controlling for income. Given that homeownership has been one of the key avenues of wealth appreciation for the middle class, any intervention discouraging it will likely have had disproportionate effects on wealth (Hilber and Liu 2008, Charles and Hurst 2002).

Kuznicki also highlights an interesting distinction between welfare programs that emphasize capital accumulation and eventual self-sufficiency (like the Federal Housing Administration, which provided loans to low-income homebuyers, or the GI Bill, which funded millions of Americans’ college education) and welfare programs aimed at addressing immediate material needs (food stamps, for example, or rent subsidization). This distinction is significant because many of the New Deal’s racially-segregated programs fell into the former category, whereas later, race-neutral welfare policies weren’t geared towards wealth accumulation. In short, both Kuznicki and Jamelle argue that Black Americans were frozen out of a system that helped create the American middle class. By the time segregation ended, our approach to social welfare already shifted to a needs-based system that was less equipped to encourage social mobility.

I mention this not because the story of institutionalized discrimination is particularly pleasant, but because it has real relevance to how we view the current debate over homeownership and the housing crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s much-maligned loans to low-income homebuyers were widely criticizedon the right for inflating the housing bubble. Given that I can barely balance a checkbook, I’m in no position to determine the accuracy of these claims. But before condemning government-subsidized loans to low-income homebuyers, the CRA’s history is worth taking into account. The CRA was originally conceived ” . . . to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords.” In other words, it was an attempt to address racial disparities that were originally widened (if not created) by government programs like the Federal Housing Administration.

One of Kuznicki’s broader arguments is that the United States government was never “race neutral” – before the Civil Rights Movement, discrimination was not just social custom, it was rigorously enforced at both the state and federal levels. As a result, he argues that the comparatively limited state interventions sanctioned by the Civil Rights Act were justified by a legacy of institutionalized racism. My question, then, is simple: Does Kuznicki’s logic also apply to social welfare programs aimed at promoting wealth accumulation? To return to the Federal Housing Administration, Black Americans were systematically excluded from a program that had a great deal to do with promoting homeownership and the subsequent growth of the American middle class. So if the Civil Rights Act was aimed at rectifying the lingering impact of racist social policies, are programs like the CRA and other minority homeownership initiatives a justifiable response to state-sanctioned economic discrimination?

I only ask because Kuznicki’s article – which is worth reading in full – is a real challenge to conservatives and libertarians who are generally suspicious of just about anything subsidized by the federal government. I admit I haven’t quite made up my own mind on the issue, but I’d be interested to hear other small government sympathizers on the policy implications of these lingering economic disparities.

Agreed. But…once we’ve acknowledged that government has not, in fact, treated people equally, and that its failure to do so has lingering effects, how do we remedy those effects? Doing nothing beyond simply saying that government will now treat people equally may (and often will) simply perpetuate the government’s past discrimination even after it has adopted a truly neutral, equally protective stance. In other words, what can and should government do to remedy the lingering effects of its past discrimination to make its new race-neutral position have any actual meaning?Report

I’d suggest ending the war on drugs, ensuring that education is strong enough to provide 100% literacy for graduates (vouchers?), and providing more incentives for businessmen to open shops (and, perhaps, jobs).

If there are cultural issues, I suppose that we could discuss them as well… but I reckon that many of them could be cleaned up by an eliminating the WoD and doing a better job educating “at risk” children.Report

Anything that looks or smells like “reparations” will be politically unpopular, to say the least, even if one were to argue that such were deserved. Even race-neutral programs targeting poverty (which would, in theory, benefit African-Americans more) are frequently blasted by the right (and by Libertarians as well); many on the right seem to object to things like welfare BECAUSE they are seen benefiting minorities. (I’m not accusing anyone here of such, mind you).

There’s a reason the stereotypical “welfare queen” is a black baby momma living in the ghetto, smoking crack, not a white baby momma in the trailer park, doing meth. The folks who’d rather not spend money on these sort of social programs at all (the “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else” crowd), use race-baiting to make such programs unpopular among poor whites who might otherwise benefit.

There’s a reason that CRA was blamed for the housing crash, even though the entire claim is ludicrous on its face.Report

No offense, Jaybird, but…considering that you think the government shouldn’t be involved at all, I’m not surprised you have no idea what they “can and should do to remedy the lingering effects of its past discrimination.”

That seems to be a common problem among small government/libertarian types who think “governs least” means “governs not at all.”Report

Sorry, it sounded to me like you were saying not to even ask “so what now” because that would mean admitting that getting government out of marriage was impossible and you weren’t prepared to do so. Maybe we were just using the word “society” differently? I didn’t read “we as a society” as meaning “the Majority” or “the State”.Report

Hey Joseph, maybe I can help. I’ve read quite a few libertarian pieces. I think Jay’s position can be simplified down as follows: -Generally government should not be involved in marriage. -If it is involved in marriage and can’t be extricated from its involvement (the current situation) then the government should apply it’s involvement as evenly as possible to the maximum number of citizens. -Thus government involvement in marriage (specifically civil non-religious marriage) should address the needs of same sex couples.

I think this is close to Jay’s position though I think he has some laudable personal sympathy to the needs of same sex couples in addition to that.Report

This just reinforces my belief that the gov’t should stay out of such things in the first place. Yes the gov’t screwed it up but I don’t want them now trying to fix it. Speaking of the FHA, I was listening to a NPR Morning Edition story that the FHA is stuck with a lot of bad loans b/c their lending standards are so low and many of their loans were always destined to fail.Report

Exactly. That’s why so many private lenders got taken down by the sub-prime loans they made, and it’s why the commercial foreclosure rate is so high despite no government involvement in the market whatsoever.

hen necessarily have to acknowledge the federal government’s equally direct role in building the wealth of middle-class white America. As Wright notes, the Homestead Acts, the New Deal and the G.I. Bill all but created the white middle-class. To acknowledge that – to really, truly take it and its implications seriously – is to directly undermine the myth of self-reliance and independence that we cling to as Americans.

Jamelle evidently believes that there were no salaried employees or small businessmen in America prior to 1933 and that the Roosevelt and Truman Administration ‘created’ this social stratum ex nihilo. (With an antecendent assist from the Lincoln Administration, without which the rural population would have been divided between latifundiaries and peons).Report

Kuznicki’s article is pretty detailed on this point. Subsidies from New Deal programs like the Federal Housing Administration may not have single-handedly created the middle class, but they certainly helped a lot of American families accumulate wealth.Report

You can accumulate assets in one of two ways: entrepreneurial activity or by savings and investment. Both were liberally practiced prior to 1933.

The real value of goods and services produced in this country (per capita) has about quadrupled since 1929. More income, more assets. I believe there was a secular trend toward a more equalitarian distribution of assets and income in this country between 1929 and 1969, so assets were more broadly distributed for a time, all else being equal. I imagine you could put together a considerable bibliography of literature exploring why this was so; conceivably financial innovations promoted by the FHA (e.g. thirty-year mortgages coupled to 20% down payments and issued by banks) aided in this. (Prior to 1930, mortgages were commonly issued by insurance companies for terms of five years, including a balloon payment). Dr. Kuznicki’s article is neither an econometric study nor a review of econometric literature, so is not truly engaged in an attempt to apportion responsibility between various government policies (factors exterior to public policy).

I should note that ‘the middle class’ is a social stratum. Bourgeois life as my mother knew it during the years running from 1938 to 1952 was austere in a way that is unusual today; it was, however, bourgeois life. The economic development manifested in the movement from agrarian to non-agrarian employment created the ‘middle class’, not Mr. Roosevelt’s legislative program. In 1930, agriculture, fishing, and forestry employed less than 20% of the workforce and most people lived in town, so your urban middle class was considerable. I will wager that those of this description were much more likely in 1930 to be proprietors than they are today, and that that is a change of greater note than the ratio of the middle class to the wage-earning population.

As for the G.I. Bill, it put persons without higher eduction at a competitive disadvantage and (0ne suspects) vitiated institutional efforts to maintain and extend the quality of secondary education. Our youth start their productive lives five years later than they did eighty years ago and (in contrast to the situation as it stood in 1950) laden with debt. How’s that working out for us?Report

Not sure where the GI Bill fits into all of this? I mean, sure, it’s a government benefit, but it is not an entitlement. You have to sign up for it and pay into it (I paid $100/month for the first year of my service) in order to get anything out. I do agree that it helped to create the middle class among veterans, along with VA home loans, but both programs still require the recipients to work for it, and work with it.Report

The GI Bill is relevant because (at least after World War II) African-American service members were largely denied its benefits. Here’s an excerpt from Kuznicki’s article on the subject:

“Particularly shabby was the treatment black veterans received at the hands of state administrators of the Selective Service Readjustment Act, better known as the GI Bill. Representative John Rankin (D-Miss.) chaired the Committee on World War Legislation, which drafted the bill, seeing to it that Veterans Administration facilities in the South, including hospitals, would be segregated by race. Rankin also zealously insisted that “no Department or Agency, or Offices of the United States . . . shall exercise any supervision or control whatsoever over any state educational agency,” the better to exclude black veterans from schools. Yet federal money certainly would flow to state educational agencies, to be administered locally, according to Jim Crow rules. On this point he was quite explicit: “a definite line should be drawn in the schooling on the matter of race segregation” (Katznelson 2005, 127). Recent analysis suggests that Rankin succeeded, and that, particularly in the South, the education gap between whites and blacks actually widened at least in part as a result of this federal subsidy for Jim Crow (Turner and Bound 2003).Report

Also, I would hardly characterize the homestead act as a sort of “welfare program”, considering that to even right-libertarians such as Rothbard, uncultivated land is considered freely subject to homesteading. On an island situation, this is the basis of land property, and when one creates an item such as a bow by “mixing one’s labor with the land”, that is the basis of private property.Report

To tack on something related. Homeownership and the rise of the white flight suburbs left African-Americans in America’s cities which came out on the losing side of intra-state political battles more often than not and they really lost when America declared war on urban living to build highways.

Which is to say that not only did the government actively deny African-Americans the same postwar wealth-building opportunities as their white counterparts, they also actively promoted economic developments that devastated urban cores and undermined the ability of city-bound/stuck blacks to build an urban middle class the likes of which we see in more urbanized countries with lower rates of home-ownership.

Add to the mix well-meaning but disastrous policies like housing projects ala Pruitt-Igoe and the drug war.

I’d like to think we’ve learned our lessons and can do better but a look at the achievement gap in education and other disparate outcomes demonstrate just how long way to go before we’re at a place when equality of opportunity between the races looks like more than just a pipe dream. It also amounts to another reason why – perhaps – we should less anxious to be so post-racial.Report

I spent 17 happy years in inner-city neighborhoods and do not much care for inter-state highways or suburban town planning. That having been said…

Detroit is devastated; Newark is devastated; both are atypical. In my home town during my young adult years, household incomes were about 15% lower in the central city than was the case in the suburban townships; the disjunction in affluence was not that radical; owner occupied housing was ample and various characteristics of housing development made neighborhoods pleasant in ways they simply were not and are not outside city limits. Home values are quite low in the shabby neighborhoods around Genesee Street and Jefferson Avenue and Hudson Avenue. However, homeowners in these areas can (given small mortgage payments) deploy income to the purchase of abstract assets like annuities. An ordinary person does not have to buy a house to accumulate assets; they do have to contain their level of personal consumption. The residents of these neighborhoods are a good deal less affluent than the mean, and that makes the work more difficult. They are less affluent because of deficits of human capital, which in turn implicates the efficacy of primary and secondary education (among other things). Neither the manipulation of housing markets or pumping money into higher education are remedies for that.Report

Exactly. One of (IMO) the best chapters in Life Inc. makes precisely this point. These policies were based on isolating people from one another in homogenous suburbs and urban areas – keeping black people poor and out of White Suburban Consumer Paradise was crucial to the goal, because if everyone isn’t basically alike -yet also totally separated into little atomized units – the whole artifice collapses.Report

We are the government. Many of us historically have been viciously racist.

Conclusion: The government will have historically promulgated racist policies.

One quick check of the Constitution and a history book or two and tada!, the hypotheses and conclusion are demonstrated, in fact, to be true.

There’s virtually no federal Department unaffected by historical animosity towards blacks. DoD — even following Truman’s desegregation order, it took years and a couple more wars for darker-skinned Americans to have equal opportunity for advancement. (Quick trivia question — who was the first African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?) Dept. Ag. — a huge settlement was made in recent years over the refusal of the Department to make crop loans to African Americans on terms comparable to those offered to whites. Dept. Justice — probably the most racially aware Department due to its active mandate to enforce the Civil Rights laws. But that wasn’t until the Kennedy administration. etc.

Unfortunately, telling white people that they are the unintended (sort of) beneficiaries of years of discrimination tends not to work too well. Head over to Reason’s blog, or Volokh Conspiracy, or any of the smarter libertarian blogs, and try to start a discussion about righting even recent wrongs. Such a thing is impossible and unfair, we are told, because the government cannot identify with specificity who has been harmed and who has been benefitted. Better that bygones be bygones and that the government look only to the present and the future. Anti-poverty programs are fine, so long as they are race-neutral (and, of course, not too expensive).

Meantime, young black men who have no work and no hope continue to flood into California prisons.

I ain’t asking for reparations; I’m just saying that a little understanding might go a long way.Report

I think the per capita income of the black population is around 35% lower than the general population. Even if all of this were attributable to racial discrimination, the effect on the remainder of society would be a premium of around 5% of their total income.

Being ‘hopeless’ is not what gets you arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison.Report

Thanks for this. I’ve always known, experientially, that the commie-Dems were a bunch of goofballs, however, I had no idea they were racist goofballs. So FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bubba, and Jimmy and the socialist/Marxist Democrat Party have systematically oppressed the black community. If so, why do African Americans vote for these people? I mean, Martin Luther King was a Republican but even if they didn’t want to vote for the country club set there’s always independents.Report

“I only ask because Kuznicki’s article – which is worth reading in full – is a real challenge to conservatives and libertarians who are generally suspicious of just about anything subsidized by the federal government.”

Is it really all that much of a challenge? It posits that the federal government, as an institution, is subject to capturte by all sorts of vile special interests groups, even to the point of impoverishing vast swaths of its own people.

And this somehow argues for a larger role for the federal government in guiding the futues of said impoverished people?

Let’s say some guy broke into my house, punched me in the face and stole everything I own. A few years later, he promises that he is contrite, and offers to become my life coach. Should I take him up on the offer? Should I put my kids’ education, my health care, and my retirement under his control?

Look. As Jaybird points out, getting the feds out of it is hardly an option. But as Jamelle points out, reparations aren’t an option either. So what we are left with it a “vector,” leading us towards one of these responses or the other.

My vector leads me away from the institution that f-ed it up in the first place. The article points us towards that institution.

An institution that has proven itself to be serially irreponsible with regard to finances. That is leading us doen a fools path even with popular programs like social security and medicare.

A friend of mine writes on this subject: “It’s also possible that cultural attitudes played/play a part in lower levels of black home ownership. Not all people have the same attitude toward ownership. For instance, my father had no interest in owning a home. He came from a family of renters in a venerable neighborhood of tenants in urban Germany. After moving to the States he rented for the rest of his life. He could have bought but had no interest in doing so. He viewed home ownership as a burden– not as a source of freedom. I also know many NYC area tenants who have no interest in owning… And in my years of peering at mortgage fraud, it’s frequently struck me that many defaulting owners in low income neighborhoods were primarily attracted to the ‘no more landlord’ part of home ownership and were uninterested in other aspects. Ownership was thrust on them– frequently as an anti-racist ideal.Report

Oh boy, who will be courageous enough to point this out to the black community? We all know how current black leaders love to play the victim, but will they point this fact out to shift the way they do things and advocate for a more libertarian point of view? I am willing to bet NO. But this article is quite interestingReport

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.